Posting Towards Gomorrah - Page 86

Tyrone Slothrop · 09-14-2006, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Is he a citizen?

Where are we holding him?

Why does either matter?

SlaveNoMore · 09-14-2006, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Tyrone Slothrop
It's a strange little world that you live in where whether the Democrats would support the President in a counterfactual world is a more compelling question than whether there actually are WMD in Iraq.

Ask a stupid question....

SlaveNoMore · 09-14-2006, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Tyrone Slothrop
Why does either matter?

Because I, for one, did not realize that the Constitutional right to Habeas Corpus applied to foreign nationals on foreign soil.

Tyrone Slothrop · 09-14-2006, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Because I, for one, did not realize that the Constitutional right to Habeas Corpus applied to foreign nationals on foreign soil.

Never mind what the Constitution says. Why should it matter? We know he's innocent.

Spanky · 09-14-2006, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It's a strange little world that you live in where whether the Democrats would support the President in a counterfactual world is a more compelling question than whether there actually are WMD in Iraq.

Actually, he understands that whether or not there were WMDS is not a compelling question. We thought they were there, we took out Saddam Hussein, and is seems they were not there. End of story. Now that Saddam is gone and isn’t coming back it is irrelevant whether they were there when we went in.

It is just Democrats trying to score political points that make it a relevant issue. The only reason I would care if there were WMDs in Iraq is because it there were, it would give the Democrats less to scream about. :cussing: That is the only purpose it would serve. However, the point he was making is that even if there were WMDS the Democrats would still be screaming about something else. Therefore, from a practical standpoint (politically, strategically and tactically) the issue of whether or not there were WMDs in Iraq is irrelevant.

I agree.

Spanky · 09-14-2006, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Never mind what the Constitution says. Why should it matter? We know he's innocent.

And if whoever is holding him knows he is innocent then why are they still holding him? And if they know he is innocent but are still holding him, why would any one besides the detainers or detainee know that he is innocent? And what do you mean by innocent? Like someone who had never had a terrorist thought in their mind, was herding sheep and just got caught up in the dragnet? Assuming that somehow the US government was holding someone that was innocent, and it became common knowledge that they were innocent, from a pure moral perspective, the case should be looked into, but it would have nothing to do with Habeas Corpus. If they were completely innocent they should be let free. Does that answer your question? :rock:

SlaveNoMore · 09-14-2006, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Spanky
Actually, he understands that whether or not there were WMDS is not a compelling question. We thought they were there, we took out Saddam Hussein, and is seems they were not there. End of story. Now that Saddam is gone and isn’t coming back it is irrelevant whether they were there when we went in.

It is just Democrats trying to score political points that make it a relevant issue. The only reason I would care if there were WMDs in Iraq is because it there were, it would give the Democrats less to scream about. :cussing: That is in the only purpose it would serve. However, the point he was making is that even if there were WMDS the Democrats would still be screaming about something else. Therefore, from a practical standpoint (politically, strategically and tactically) the issue of whether or not there were WMDs in Iraq is irrelevant.

I agree.

:td:

SlaveNoMore · 09-14-2006, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Tyrone Slothrop
Never mind what the Constitution says. Why should it matter? We know he's innocent.

How do we know that? According to whom?

Spanky · 09-14-2006, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
:td:

:bow2:

SlaveNoMore · 09-14-2006, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Spanky
And if whoever is holding him knows he is innocent then why are they still holding him? And if they know he is innocent but are still holding him, why would any one besides the detainees know that he is innocent? And what do you mean by innocent? Like someone who had never had a terrorist thought in their mind, was herding sheep and just got caught up in the dragnet? Assuming that somehow the US government was holding someone that was innocent, and it became common knowledge that they were innocent, from a pure moral perspective, the case should be looked into, but it would have nothing to do with Habeas Corpus. If they were completely innocent they should be let free. Does that answer your question? :rock:

:td: :td:

Spanky · 09-14-2006, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
:td: :td:

:bow: :bow2:

Tyrone Slothrop · 09-14-2006, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Actually, he understands that whether or not there were WMDS is not a compelling question. We thought they were there, we took out Saddam Hussein, and is seems they were not there. End of story. Now that Saddam is gone and isn’t coming back it is irrelevant whether they were there when we went in.

It is just Democrats trying to score political points that make it a relevant issue. The only reason I would care if there were WMDs in Iraq is because it there were, it would give the Democrats less to scream about. :cussing: That is the only purpose it would serve. However, the point he was making is that even if there were WMDS the Democrats would still be screaming about something else. Therefore, from a practical standpoint (politically, strategically and tactically) the issue of whether or not there were WMDs in Iraq is irrelevant.

I agree.

The purported disloyalty of Democrats to the President under counterfactual circumstances isn't even a question -- it's partisan masturbation. So while the question of what actually happened in the real world re WMD is not particularly interesting any more, it is still more compelling than Slave's question.

Tyrone Slothrop · 09-14-2006, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
And if whoever is holding him knows he is innocent then why are they still holding him?

Why does it matter?

Quote:

And if they know he is innocent but are still holding him, why would any one besides the detainers or detainee know that he is innocent?

Yes.

Quote:

And what do you mean by innocent?

I mean he's innocent, and we know.

Quote:

Like someone who had never had a terrorist thought in their mind, was herding sheep and just got caught up in the dragnet?

Sure. Does it matter? He's innocent.

Quote:

Assuming that somehow the US government was holding someone that was innocent, and it became common knowledge that they were innocent, from a pure moral perspective, the case should be looked into, but it would have nothing to do with Habeas Corpus.

I mean they're innocent in every way, but we're still holding them. Why does that have nothing to do with habeas corpus?

Quote:

If they were completely innocent they should be let free. Does that answer your question?

No, my question was whether they should be able to seek a writ of habeas corpus.

Tyrone Slothrop · 09-14-2006, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
How do we know that? According to whom?

My hypo.

SlaveNoMore · 09-14-2006, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Tyrone Slothrop
The purported disloyalty of Democrats to the President under counterfactual circumstances isn't even a question -- it's partisan masturbation. So while the question of what actually happened in the real world re WMD is not particularly interesting any more, it is still more compelling than Slave's question.

Why are the Dems filibustering John Bolton and not giving him the benefit of an up-or-down vote?